With the prevalence of dash cams, go pros, and smart phones, these sorts of videos have become more and more common, e.g. here’s another one from Oregon in 2015, Police credit cyclist’s video in careless driving citation: Continue reading ‘In the presence’ Requirement? →

Arizona has no such crime, nor do we have a vehicular homicide statue. You’ve either assaulted someone or not; if you use a vehicle in an assault, you will be charged with aggravated assault, a serious felony. These cases far more commonly involve impaired drivers — an impaired driver who causes a crash w/injury are routinely charged with aggravated assault; e.g. the driver in the pedicab incident (sentenced to 4 years in prison). However from time to time, there are drivers who are just plain angry over something or other.

There’s a mis-conception that assault, §13-1203 requires causing actual physical  injury; but that is not the case, merely “Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury” creates the crime of assault. And aggravated assault  §13-1204 is just an assault committed with some listed factor; in cases involving a motor vehicle: “If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument”, or if the victim is seriously injured regardless of how.

[ Also see  §13-1201, and  §13-1202 which are the crimes of “Endangerment”, and “Threatening or intimidating”, respectively. These all sort of play together, note the statute numbering: 1201,2,3,4 ]. They are in rough-order of escalating seriousness:

• §13-1201 Endangerment
• §13-1202 Threatening or intimidating
•  §13-1203 Assault
•  §13-1204 Aggravated Assault
• also see note about Harrassment statute, below

Also, in case you were wondering:

28-3304. Mandatory revocation of license; definition
A. In addition to the grounds for mandatory revocation provided.. the department shall immediately revoke the license of a driver…
1. A homicide or aggravated assault resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle. [effectively this causes a 3 year revocation per 28-3315E1]

Indicia of Criminality

Any incident must be considered in total; however, one or more of these actions by a driver may indicate criminal intentions, and not merely infractions. The more indications the more likely there was criminal intent. Note these indicators have little in particular to do with bicyclists, and are more-or-less the same as any road rage situation

• Repeated or prolonged horn activation
• Activating horn while stopped
• Changing lanes repeatedly
• Changing lanes to become impeded
• Failure to drive within one lane (“Straddling” lanes)
• Failure to change lanes when another lane is available
• Passing too closely
• Driving too slowly / Slowing or braking after passing
• Surging (speeding up then slowing down)
• Any Reckless or Aggressive Driving
• Shouting
• Causing extra noise (revving engine)
• Backing / returning to the scene of an incident
• Leaving the scene of a crash (“hit-and-run“)

This content was moved from comment on related article in-the-presence-requirement

Harassment

Arizona has a criminal harassment law, it doesn’t appear to be particularly applicable to motorists who harass others on the road:

 §13-2921 Harassment; classification; definition

E.g. would or could unwanted and otherwise illegal repeated horn-blowing or screaming qualify as “with intent to harass (by) … causes(ing) a communication…”?

In the context of bicyclists, see CA Attorney Seth Davidson’s article Report Card, where he stresses the need, neigh duty, to report such behaviors, which are nothing more or less than using a dangerous instrument to commit a crime.

Some Arizona Cases of Drivers Charged Criminally in Arizona

Here are the curious cases of Theresa Depiero and Holly Solomon Continue reading Vehicular Assault →